Fossilized nut or fig?

[Rockwood]

23 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

just the shape

Wouldn't the density of a tooth limit the amount variation from it's original texture during diagenesis ?

[Mahnmut]

17 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Wouldn't the density of a tooth limit the amount variation from it's original texture during diagenesis ?

I do not say it is a tooth. But I would not exclude the possibility. What diagenesis does depends very much on circumstances, a little time in acidic conditions may alter a tooth quite a bit. I admit it does not look like a typical example of eroded tooth, but as the shape, rather than texture, fits quite well (I think as well as location, but on that I am even less an expert than on everything else) tooth is still among my first guesses, for what its worth.

Best Regards,

J

[Shellseeker]

On 2/19/2021 at 10:58 PM, Brachiopods said:

Hi all,

 

This fossil was found along one of the tributaries of the Crystal River in Florida

It appears to be some sort of fossilized fig or nut. Does anyone here have any ideas as to its age or species? 

A fossilized horse tooth and a Savannah River arrowhead were found nearby. I believe the arrowhead is more recent than the fossils. 

I have heavily hunted Florida creeks and rivers for 15 years and participated on this forum for 12 years. I have not previously seen any Florida hunter produce a similar fossilized object for identification. That uniqueness raises questions on whether or not this is a fossil.

I was out hunting today, and had I picked this up, I would have turned it over and over trying to determine if it was a fossil.  The default is that this is a mud concretion that hardened into rock , cracked and weathered over time.  You need to find a Florida Fossil expert who states it is something else. The top expert in Florida on fossils is Richard Hulbert. Director of the Vertebrate Paleontology lab at the University of Florida. Fortunately you can ask his opinion by submitting photos and description to:

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/vertpaleo/amateur-collector/fossil-id/

 

I am not certain that your horse tooth is correctly identified.  Can you provide a photo of the chewing surface?

 

You should read about the rules governing Artifacts (including arrowheads) on Florida State owned land. https://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/information-center-gc33/collecting-tips-advice-gc102/legal-issues-ethics-gc104/108251-state-laws-relevant-to-artifact-collecting

Basically, it is illegal to possess the Artifact pictured above, if it was found on land or river bottom owned by the State of Florida. That may or may not be the case with your  find.

[Coco]

6 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

I am not certain that your horse tooth is correctly identified.  Can you provide a photo of the chewing surface?

It is a bovid, cow or bison.

 

Coco

[Brachiopods]

20 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

I have heavily hunted Florida creeks and rivers for 15 years and participated on this forum for 12 years. I have not previously seen any Florida hunter produce a similar fossilized object for identification. That uniqueness raises questions on whether or not this is a fossil.

I was out hunting today, and had I picked this up, I would have turned it over and over trying to determine if it was a fossil.  The default is that this is a mud concretion that hardened into rock , cracked and weathered over time.  You need to find a Florida Fossil expert who states it is something else. The top expert in Florida on fossils is Richard Hulbert. Director of the Vertebrate Paleontology lab at the University of Florida. Fortunately you can ask his opinion by submitting photos and description to:

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/vertpaleo/amateur-collector/fossil-id/

 

I am not certain that your horse tooth is correctly identified.  Can you provide a photo of the chewing surface?

 

You should read about the rules governing Artifacts (including arrowheads) on Florida State owned land. https://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/information-center-gc33/collecting-tips-advice-gc102/legal-issues-ethics-gc104/108251-state-laws-relevant-to-artifact-collecting

Basically, it is illegal to possess the Artifact pictured above, if it was found on land or river bottom owned by the State of Florida. That may or may not be the case with your  find.

Thank you for the contact and information. I'll reach out to the email provided on the site. I'll keep this thread posted on what they respond with. 

As far as the arrowhead is concerned, I do believe the land was privately owned. A hotel owned the surrounding creek land, and they had a big display of arrowheads found by the owner. 

[Brachiopods]

Here are some close-ups of the tooth to show the root and chewing surface. 

[Rockwood]

I'm going to guess cow, while I wait to see, that is. 

[Shellseeker]

24 minutes ago, Brachiopods said:

As far as the arrowhead is concerned, I do believe the land was privately owned. A hotel owned the surrounding creek land, and they had a big display of arrowheads found by the owner. 

 

As for the tooth,  it might be Bison or modern lower m3 based on length of the chewing surface.  Here is a great photo from Harry's gallery,

 

[Brachiopods]

Thanks for the tooth IDs! It definitely looks a lot more like bison than horse. 

 

[Coco]

I think I’m gonna have to change my glasses...

 

Coco

[darrow]

On 2/20/2021 at 12:52 PM, abyssunder said:

Tilly bone?

I agree, the "fossilized fig" looks like tilly bone to me.   

[HuckMucus]

I'd never heard of a Tilly Bone before.  I did a Google image search and came up with several photos that, if they are of Tilly Bones, then I think that I what we have here.

 

As to the original post, you might want to share with this outfit here:  https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/tilly-bones

 

The say: "This project is to try and collect all the observations of tilly bones on iNaturalist, and could use a lot of help; most are left as "Unknown" or "Animals", and get lost in the backlog of observations.
Feel free to join!"